An investigative reporter, researching the phenomenon known as 'snuff', gets some first-hand experience in the subject after she is abducted by a psycho, taken to a blood spattered basement, and filmed whilst tortured (along with a couple of other unfortunate victims).
If you are a fan of extreme underground horror, then you have probably heard at least some of the controversy and hoopla surrounding this film (about the realistic gore, which led people to believe that the on-screen carnage they were seeing was real, or how the director was beaten up by an irate member of the audience after one particularly nasty sequence). However, any extreme underground horror fan worth his (or her) salt knows that it's never wise to believe the hype: more often than not, the rumour-mill isn't exactly providing accurate information.
For starters, I've seen this film described as 'faux-snuff', which it most certainly isn't: with its multiple camera angles, distinct narrative, creative editing, and an effective thumping industrial soundtrack, it could never be mistaken for 'the real McCoy' (and I don't believe that was ever the director's intention). Also, the gore in this film isn't really that graphic: sure... a LOT of nasty things happen to the women in the basement, but Snuff 102 manages to suggest a lot more than it actually shows.
The quality of the footage is grainy and has been treated with filters to achieve a distressed look; much of the action occurs in shadowy conditions, making it hard to discern what is happening; and clever editing deceives the viewer into believing that they have seen much more than they actually have. So, the 'chiselled teeth' scene, although certainly nasty, isn't as stomach-churning as it might've been, and the 'stomping' of the pregnant woman (the killer crushes her head and her distended belly), which is admittedly nauseating in concept, doesn't really warrant attacking the film-maker.
Much more disturbing, in my mind, is the inclusion of genuine images of pain and suffering taken from the internet (the sort of thing to be found on dubious sites such as Ogrish or Rotten), and a couple of scenes of animals being killed and mistreated (I always find real gore difficult to stomach).
Director Mariano Peralta has certainly delivered a gutsy, taboo-busting film which is genuinely unsettling, but is it the last word in gruelling snuff-themed cinema, as some might claim? Definitely not. Snuff 102 has far too many moments that drag (a very dull beginning and lots of talking throughout), is a little repetitive, and features much too much in the way of artistic pretension for it to walk away with that accolade.
